Maryland Manual 1996 1997 Department of Human Resources / 379

themselves, the "able bodied" unemployed were not admitted Consequently, though the demand was
made for hard labor, inmates who were elderly, infirm, crippled, blind, deaf, or insane could not provide
it In 1838, a statewide flurry of interest in silk cultivation resulted in legislation enabling eight counties
to embark on that profit making scheme in their almshouses (Chapters 77,90,160,170,192,221, 231,
and 296, Acts of 1838) Several counties planned to use profits to hire a teacher for the children of
almshouse inmates, but no evidence indicates the scheme was implemented As in farming, the trustees
overestimated the abilities of their work force

Almshouses survived in Maryland until after 1940 with little change except in the demography of their
clientele The poor and destitute perceived them as a last resort Inmates were plagued by filth, vermm,
inadequate diet, and the crowding together of persons with totally different needs An 1877 report by the
Secretary of the State Board of Health referred to one county almshouse as "a mockery of charm and a nursery
of pollution " Almshouses provided relief to people who had no family or fnends to support them m the
community Most commonly they were mothers and children, the elderly, insane, feeble minded, alcoholic,
blind, deaf, and other physically handicapped Vagrants and lunatics, if not in the almshouse, were hkely to be
confined m the county jail Almshouses reflected the optimistic faith of the early nineteenth century in the
efficacy of institutions in solving, or at least hiding, societal ills That belief led to the creation of more specialized
institutions which eventually reshaped almshouse populations Children were the first to leave An 1886 law
prohibited the presence in an almshouse of any child aged three to sixteen years of age tor more than ninety
days, provided of course that the child was not "an unteachable idiot, an epileptic, or a paralytic, or otherwise
so disabled or deformed as to render it incapable of labor or service " (Chapter 262, Acts of 1886) Those
children removed from almshouses were to be placed by the Trustees of the Poor with a respectable family or
m an institution The trustees previously had authority to bind out pauper children and the children of free
blacks and mulattoes as apprentices Towards the end of the nineteenth century, as the State built institutions
for the insane, the feeble minded, and incurables, and training schools for the deaf and blind, these groups also
gradually moved out of the almshouses As early as 1817, counties could have committed their insane to the
Maryland Hospital, which became exclusively a hospital for the mentally ill in 1838 The number of insane
persons confined in county almshouses and jails did not diminish, however, even after the second State hospital
for the insane was built in 1894 The dependent insane finally were removed to State hospitals m 1911 (Chapter
435, Acts of 1908)

From 1900 to 1940, almshouse residents increasingly became the elderly and chronically ill In 1906,
perhaps to relieve the stigma, almshouses were renamed as county homes (Chapter 32, Acts of 1906)
Changing the name did not alleviate the problems Special commissions reported to the Governor and
legislature in 1931, 1933, 1938, and 1940 that conditions in almshouses were a disgrace to a civilized
country, jeopardizing the health of their inmates Nonetheless, until the State built its first chronic care
hospital in 1950, almshouse residents had no place to go

The counties and Baltimore City bore the financial burden of their almshouses and out pensioners
alone, although the General Assembly passed all laws relating to their administration The State took no
direct fiscal responsibility for the poor and destitute, relief came from county taxes In 1816, an unusual
statewide measure for the temporary relief of the poor due to "the awful calamity of a scarcity of grain"
enabled counties to borrow, levy, or appropriate funds for their suffering citizens, but no State monies
were provided (Chapter 192, Acts of 1816) State funds built a few public institutions in the late nineteenth
century, but they were far outnumbered by private chanties The legislature, recognizing the public service
of these private institutions, haphazardly granted annual appropriations to a select and favored few,
requiring no accountability or efficiency in return

Private Charities Private philanthropy grew profusely, paralleling the growth of private fortunes in
the nineteenth century In Baltimore City especially, private citizens and religious bodies supported soup
kitchens, orphanages, hospitals, schools, nurseries, and old age homes Private charitable institutions
developed to meet public welfare needs not met by almshouses, out pensions, and the few existing State
institutions Due in part to the multiplicity of charitable institutions, out pensions in Baltimore City ceased
around 1862, and, until outlawed by the legislature, City government instead appropriated funds to
private charities Baltimoreans early realized that while private charitable donations and institutions were
more than adequate to aid the City's poor, distribution was chaotic and inadequate Two organizations,
the Baltimore Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor (1849) and the Baltimore Charity
Organization (1881), were formed to organize philanthropy according to tenets of "scientific chanty"
Their efforts ultimately professionalized social work but also categorized the poor as worthy and unworthy
To avoid duplication of resources, both organizations used a central registry of recipients and investigated
applications for assistance Their concerns focused more on solutions to underlying causes of poverty than
relief of immediate needs